Tuesday, 13 June 2017

In the News

quote [ Local stations KOTI 2 and KOBI 5 helping me get the word out :) ]

Ok, now that this is on tv I might be able to get someone to test this experiment, or physically evaluate my setup.
Either way .. now the story is getting some forward momentum itself ;)
[SFW] [science & technology] [+8 Unworthy Self Link]
[by -_-@12:17amGMT]

Comments

NuncEstBibendum said @ 11:53am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:5 Funny]
Please, face, make yourself presentable:

mechanical contrivance said @ 1:22pm GMT on 13th Jun
Iron Man with a beard.
Ankylosaur said @ 2:38pm GMT on 13th Jun
Zenyatta before he encased himself in tamale pots and started levitating.
donnie said @ 12:43am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:3]
Anti-gravity?! That's the most ambitious claim I've ever heard for the world's most inefficient merry-go-round engine.
cb361 said[1] @ 6:41am GMT on 13th Jun
They called Mad Angus "Mad Dog" McMaddingley mad, you know. Right before he put those frogs up his bottom.
Ankylosaur said @ 7:18am GMT on 13th Jun
And as the frogs hopped around in his intestines, he levitated to the moon.
cb361 said @ 7:52am GMT on 13th Jun
Keith Moon, unfortunately. This was all back in the seventies.
lsdbeta said @ 4:08pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
-_- said @ 10:13pm GMT on 13th Jun
Yeah, this has nothing to do with "free energy", it's just converting electricity into forward momentum.
donnie said[1] @ 10:45pm GMT on 13th Jun
You use the word "just" so casually here. Creating nonzero momentum out of energy, as far as the best minds in the world, and all physical evidence we have gathered for all time, can tell, is completely impossible. It is equally as impossible as free energy. Why would you imply that it is a trivialism?
-_- said @ 2:56am GMT on 14th Jun
Try this experiment yourself and you'll see why I consider it trivial.
I didn't sit around trying to figure out how to do this, I observed something my first year of high school and finally got around to physically testing it 36yrs later.
Over the years I realized the implications though.
It is a trivial thing, on par with using a round thing to move across the ground better, or a long stick to move things more easily, it just got missed is all.
Anyone can do it.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 7:13am GMT on 14th Jun
You are right anyone can do this experiment.

However, the question being presented to you is can you explain it coherently? Have you taken any steps to falsify yourself? Clearly you have a concept of what you THINK it happening here. Experiment to prove that wrong.
-_- said @ 10:52pm GMT on 14th Jun
Yep, spent a year trying to debunk it before uploading the first video.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:08pm GMT on 14th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Okay, go back to the drawing board sir.

Your explanation included that you are converting angular momentum to linear momentum via release of water. That is not what happened, and if it is then you need a second experiment to show it as it flies in the face of physics as we know it.

What you have done is used fluid dynamics to change to overbalance a system in motion. Remove the bar, put a circular, torsional pendulum in it's place. You state that your "torsional pendulum" is different from others because you with to observe the thrust. Well -_-, that makes no god damn sense as a regular torsional pendulum will not only just allow you to observe it but to give it a quantifiable measurement of thrust. Right now, your set up only seems to work because of the bar set up. It's friction, at least to me as an outside observer.

So prove it's not. Remove the obviously flawed variables and test again.
donnie said @ 9:37am GMT on 14th Jun
It's not what you have observed that is in question, -_-, it is what you have failed to observe. If you can't see the whole picture, how can you claim to know what it is?
-_- said @ 4:24am GMT on 15th Jun
And you're thinking that angular momentum is being transferred from the spinning wheels to the beam via bearing friction, yes?
donnie said[2] @ 8:38am GMT on 15th Jun
No, in the parts you haven't even thought about - in the straps and hooks, etc, that tie the beam to the ceiling. Without that - if it was floating in space freely, it wouldn't move at all.

You have to ask yourself - how can momentum get into or out of the system? You're so focused on the engine itself, even with the plastic bag and all, that you have not considered the rest of your setup. To a physicist, that big rope and strap trapeze is a giant red flag - it's completely obvious that this is a gross "momentum leak" in your experiment.
-_- said @ 9:58am GMT on 15th Jun
Ok, I see where you're coming from on that.
To be fair though donnie, that's why I made the continuous take video.
Now bear with me man, I know you are positive I'm wrong, and that is fair.
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
So please ...

In the video I show the two wheels running under 4 different conditions specifically to demonstrate/isolate momentum leaks in my experiment.

1) two wheels containing water counter rotated to speed
pneumatic piston raises ramps to engage lever valves mounted to wheel perimeters
water from resulting "controlled leak" strikes splash plate
beam moves clockwise

2) two wheels containing water counter rotated to speed
pneumatic piston raises ramps to engage lever valves mounted to wheel perimeters
splash plate removed, water from "controlled leak" exits test bed
beam moves counterclockwise but moves less swiftly than in condition (1)

At this point I indicate that the angular momentum leaking via bearing friction from the outermost (counterclockwise) wheel is the motive force in condition (2) due to it exerting greater leverage on the beams center than the inner (clockwise) wheel does.

3) outer (counterclockwise) wheel containing water rotated to speed
pneumatic piston raises ramp to engage lever valves mounted to wheel perimeter
splash plate removed, water from "controlled leak" exits test bed
beam moves counterclockwise more swiftly than condition (2)

4) inner (clockwise) wheel containing water rotated to speed
pneumatic piston raises ramp to engage lever valves mounted to wheel perimeter
splash plate removed, water from "controlled leak" exits test bed
beam moves clockwise slowly

To the eye, and relevant software, the counter clockwise beam momentum leaked by the outer wheel is greater than the clockwise momentum leaked by the inner wheel.
The two wheels run together still leak some counterclockwise momentum due to this imbalance.
With the splash plate in place the water droplets are overcoming this counterclockwise leakage so as to cause the beam to move clockwise.

In the motorized version I made sure to not have any gross momentum leaks like that, I can run that thing for hours and it wont budge horizontally until I flip the switch to start trickling water into the wheels.
If I pump more than a trickle the wheels flood and it stalls.
donnie said[5] @ 8:56pm GMT on 15th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/


No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.

To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive your experiment will be to those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).

There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky). You need to understand experimental uncertainty analysis. You need to account for the propagation of uncertainty in your measurements to make sure your result lies outside of the expectation.

Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
-_- said @ 9:37pm GMT on 15th Jun
I'm just going to focus on power to weight and see if I can amplify my results enough to make them obvious to everyone, otherwise .. even I'm not interested in it ;D
I'm not trying to develop a proof, I'm trying to develop a tool.
Thanks though :)
sanepride said @ 12:22am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Good]
Now that's good camerawork.
Ankylosaur said @ 3:07am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Since acceleration would be constant in a vacuum, how long would it take to get to Mars if you powered the Facedrive directly with an astronaut peddling an exercycle?
-_- said @ 3:49am GMT on 13th Jun
Gearing would be super important, and radiation would likely kill you.
Great question though, XKCD worthy :D
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:38am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Good luck face :)
ComposerNate said @ 6:54am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
That's awesome. Though knowing little of what's going on here as for physics, I'm impressed by your workspace, wonder what the rest of your compound looks like. And the line "This would get you to Mars in a matter of weeks instead of months" followed by a shaking garbage bag before an audience made me laugh out loud.
-_- said @ 4:41am GMT on 15th Jun
Yeah, I didn't mean the rig I was demonstrating would get anyone anywhere, just that the tech may.
Glad I helped you flex those belly muscles though :D
ComposerNate said @ 8:12am GMT on 15th Jun [Score:1 Good]
I'm still chuckling.
Bob Denver said @ 8:30am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Keep pressing forward, Face! All the criticism may be so, but it might open up avenues of thinking that have been missed. Good luck!
NuncEstBibendum said @ 11:14am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
All these common memories, all these years...
Could we aim to make this a +10 Unworthy Self Link?
Dienes said @ 3:12pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Hot Pr0n]
I can't wait to show this to my partner, an astrophysicist, for his take.
kylemcbitch said @ 3:32pm GMT on 13th Jun
Please give us/me the response as best you can? I am deeply interested.
Dienes said @ 7:55pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:4 Informative]
So I sent him both videos and he's what he sent to me:

Technically, the trash bag probably isn’t a true sealed container, but its close enough (especially since the opening of the bag is at the top) that he’s still demonstrating pretty well that no traditional thrust is involved. He admits this isn’t a closed system – he’s pumping electricity into it.

All he’s done is set up a basic 2-cycle engine that exploits that kinetic friction and static friction have two different coefficients. It probably has some back and forth movement combined with an oblong /unbalanced weight, kinda like how a bowling ball has an off-center weight.

This isn't free energy, this isn't efficient energy, and this isn't anything new. You can replicate this engine in your computer chair. Haven’t’ you ever tried to spin yourself around in the chair without touching anything? You twist really fast in one direction (which exceeds the threshold for static friction), stop, and then twist very slowly in the other direction (which does not exceed the threshold for static friction, preventing moving backwards).

I guarantee this engine just sets up such a cycle, intentionally or not. There's a slight imbalance in the system he's taking advantage of. That’s also probably why its loud as fuck – its unbalanced nature.

He is right that an unbalanced force without trust could levitate an object – balance it against gravity. (As an aside, physicists aren’t supposed to use the term anti-gravity unless the force of gravity itself is being manipulated directly, as opposed to just having opposing thrust present.)

He’s right that this engine is capable of acceleration, but there’s no way it could hit anything close to relativistic speeds. The bar it is hanging off of is part of the motion system, and the limits of that bar constraint the maximum speed the engine could reach.

Unfortunately, this engine is completely useless for any kind of space travel. Once you remove the pivot point to push against (which would be the case once you put this in space), movement is really impossible. The ship would just wiggle in place forever. This engine can only produce rotational motion – never linear. Its also incredibly, incredibly inefficient, which would be enough on its own to not be useful in space in any practical way. In a frictionless environment like space (and the negligible amount of particles you'd encounter over exceptional distances is still too small to change this), its useless.

There’s a reason why engines strive to be balanced and frictionless, rather than the opposite. This engine (which requires friction and being unbalanced) would also break down pretty fast/easily.
Dienes said @ 7:58pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:3]
Here is the most important question:

so....if I tied my hitachi to a bar like this, would I get the same results?

There's a good chance, if the motor has some small flaws that unbalance it.

So could I have a spaceship powered by dildomancy?

Still no.
mechanical contrivance said @ 8:16pm GMT on 13th Jun
+1 dildomancy
blacksun said @ 3:59pm GMT on 14th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Paging Oglaf...
donnie said @ 9:22pm GMT on 13th Jun
Yeah, that's what we all told -_- ten years ago on old SE when there was the Great Epic Mercury saga of the negs. It hasn't changed his mind, evidently. "E" for effort, I suppose...
Dienes said @ 9:48pm GMT on 13th Jun
That's the thing about math. It doesn't give a shit about what you believe. That spaceship is still gonna just wiggle regardless.
-_- said @ 10:20pm GMT on 13th Jun
Would you mind sending this video to your friend?
It's understandable that he thinks..
"All he’s done is set up a basic 2-cycle engine that exploits that kinetic friction and static friction have two different coefficients. It probably has some back and forth movement combined with an oblong /unbalanced weight, kinda like how a bowling ball has an off-center weight. "
Since that's basically the only method people have ever used to try this, but hopefully the linked video will be helpful.
Dienes said @ 11:17pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
I showed it to him. His words:

This pretty much confirms exactly what I said earlier. The fact that the weight is water rather than a solid weight makes no difference. The water sloshing around inside the discs provides the oscillation that causes the unbalanced load; the water is the exact unbalanced weight I mentioned earlier. It is rotating and oscillating in a periodic way that creates the movement. Its still relies upon friction to have a net positive movement. In isolation (e.g., controlled conditions, space), it would still just jiggle in place.

I mean, I can see what he's saying - he did a thing in his garage and he can see it move. The fundamental misunderstanding here is that the guy is only considering what is going on in the box, and either overlooking, forgetting, or refusing to acknowledge that the bar is also part of the movement system. Once you understand that, the claims all fall apart - it won't work like he thinks it will because he's missing a critical part of the equation goin on in front of him. I really want to know his training in physics here - this is a pretty beginner mistake.

Would you say this is a classical physics problem, or something else?

Yeah, this is essentially a classical physics problem, although the sloshing water brings fluid dynamics into it as well. Its very similar to some demos that we had in our undergrad lab junior year.
Dienes said @ 11:37pm GMT on 13th Jun
He found the video you posted here because he wanted to know more about your setup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpHWI5Mwhc

He saw the valves you have in the plates that release the water droplets against the splash plate (that's just the side of the box).

His words:
Oh, that's even simpler - this is purely classical physics. He's not even using friction at this point (although some of that is still probably happening). This is literally just thrust. He's going through an intermediary of rotation to add energy to the system. The discs spin up the water to add energy, fling it to the side of the ship to nudge it forward. The problem with efficiency remains. It would also be extremely difficult to scale up to a point where we could use it. He claims this is more efficient than an ion drive, but he doesn't provide his math to back up that claim. From what I've done, the ion drive would be the better solution as it imparts far, far more energy per particle than this ever could.

As an aside, he is very confused by my sudden interest in physics.
-_- said @ 4:36am GMT on 15th Jun
Yeah, I'm not trying to make a perpetual motion machine, or even worrying much about efficiency, Just trying to show that this system can be used to generate thrust.
Sounds like he agrees with that aspect though..
" This is literally just thrust. He's going through an intermediary of rotation to add energy to the system. The discs spin up the water to add energy, fling it to the side of the ship to nudge it forward."
If I'm reading that right, that is. I mean .. "fling it to the side of the ship" refers to the splash plate doesn't it?
If I may ...
Catching the released water after it hits the splash plate and pumping it back to the wheel such that it's a closed system, and only needing maintenance power to make up for the momentum removed by each droplet .. these points may not have been obvious. My apologies for any confusion (except for his pertaining to your sudden interest in physics .. gotta keep em guessing ;)
donnie said @ 9:06am GMT on 15th Jun
Careful here - surely this can generate thrust if you let the water droplets leave the engine. As soon as you contain the water and circulate it indefinitely through the system you lose all of the thrust. Thrust requires reaction mass to leave the engine.
-_- said @ 10:39am GMT on 15th Jun
See, that's the thing I'm arguing right there donnie.
And hold on .. stop for a second and consider ... WHY? ... why in the hell would I be arguing about something that fucking obvious?
Why would I be building stupid shit out of tamale pots and risking my fucking livelihood on this shit?

!!! IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS I'M WRONG !!!

Except that I'm not, and I don't think Newton was either, but I have issue with how some have taught Newton ... not with the ones who have learned that limited teaching.
Yes, I sound arrogant, I'm sorry, it's the nature of my position in this situation, my words and actions will be grating to many.

As we all experience regularly in life .. when a rotating wheel collides with a stationary sub-mass it accelerates said sub-mass along one direction and itself is accelerated in the opposite direction.
A classic collision.

A little less common is seeing a piece break off of a rotating object wherein the sub-mass goes one direction and the rotating mass moves in the opposite direction (though that's what it ALWAYS does)
But...
The linear movement of the wheel's axis isn't a reaction to the sub-mass's flight, it's a reaction to the state of imbalance.
Yes, the sub-mass departing is what causes the imbalance, but if it had disintegrated instead of flying away the result would have been the same.
If the sub-mass were spontaneously accelerated on a vector PARALLEL with the axis of rotation (by an expert marksman shooting out a perforated target point?) the reaction to the state of imbalance would be the same.
The reaction of the wheel to imbalance is separate from the action of the sub-mass beyond the creation of the unbalanced state.

This can be proven by building a dynamically balanced wheel that stays balanced when releasing a sub-mass, within its capability to compensate for, and maintain center of mass/rotation alignment.
A LeBlanc Balancer with a controlled leak.

So I did.
I didn't want to, I spent years, hell .. decades, trying to get other people to do it, I spent weeks on old SE trying to inspire ANYONE to look into it, and no one did ... as usual, y'all thought I was crazy like everyone else.
because IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS I'M WRONG!!
But I'm not, and I can prove it.
Dienes said @ 12:38pm GMT on 15th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
No one is saying you're crazy.

They're just saying you're wrong.
salieri said @ 11:23am GMT on 15th Jun
You...you actually seem incapable of proving it, though. So far you've uploaded a bunch of videos demonstrating a complicated frankenstein version of what appears to be a friction motor, but you've aggressively refused to learn/do/show any calculations supporting your claim. You have "intuitive" descriptions of what you think is happening, but no solid proof to back it up, and your demonstrations without solid calculations will always be insufficient proof since you aren't systematically accounting for all the possible sources of force in the system. If you want proof that your system is doing what you say, then you need a calculation to provide a theoretical prediction that is then validated by an experimental setup. The reason people aren't taking the bait and testing your system for themselves is that its a waste of time -- you're offering an explanation that goes against all known physics to date, and no evidence that your explanation is correct. The far more likely scenario is that you have missed something fundamental either in your setup or in your description, and until you have calculations that others can look at and independently validate, spending time on replicating your experiment is about as fruitful as moving a car by sitting in the drivers seat and pushing on the steering wheel.
-_- said @ 9:30pm GMT on 15th Jun
Ok, thought experiment time then..
Ever seen the tv show I Dream Of Jeannie?
Imagine..
Jeannie decides Major Nelson shouldn't have to wait so long to be in space, so she does her magic and places both Major Nelson and herself in a spontaneously generated rotating habitat in outer space. In the name of simplicity the habitat is basically an inflated balloon somewhat similar to the models placed in orbit by Bigelow Aerospace, so very low mass but dimensionaly stable.
The habitat has a radius of 9.80665 meters and a rotational speed of 9.549296585513721 RPM so as to provide them with 1G artificial gravity.
But, Jeannie and Major Nelson find themselves on opposite sides of this (almost)20 meter wide chamber when they appear there.
In the ensuing hilarity (it is a sitcom after all) they discover they can not approach each other along the circumference without upsetting the balance of rotation but instead must stay exactly opposite one another.
Major Nelson gets angry and this causes Jeannie to teleport back home to Florida in a huff.
Unfortunately the sudden disappearance of Major Nelson's counter weight (Jeannie) causes the rotating habitat to become seriously unbalanced and the moment of acceleration caused by Jeannie's sudden departure sets him on a collision course with the sun.

If Jeannie had instead fallen through the floor, continuing on her tangential vector at 9.80665 meters per second, the habitat would react to the moment of imbalance identically.
If Jeannie used her magic to hover above the rotating floor the habitat would behave the same as well.

It's a fictitious causality, much like a fictitious force but with the perspectives reversed..
To an outside observer it appears that the axis of the wheel is accelerated in a direction opposite the sub-mass's flight in a simple action/reaction.
But to an observer inside the rotating frame this is obviously not the case.
Whatever the cause of imbalance, the result is the same.
Consider...

If you took a poorly anchored playground merry-go-round three meters in diameter and spun it at 3.8353585230066822 meters per second (24.41665069864577 rpm) you'd experience 1G at the perimeter.
At this point you'd be hanging on for dear life, as would your friend directly opposite from you on the wheel.
If either of you lets go the wheel will react to the sudden state of imbalance.
letting go isn't the same as being thrown, you're already traveling at speed, there's no acceleration.
To an outside observer it looks like you were thrown by the wheel, but you know your grip simply gave out.
The reaction of the wheel is not due to the ejection of mass such as with a rocket, there is no spontaneous acceleration of particles in one direction causing an equal and opposite acceleration in the opposite direction.
If the fuel in a rocket disappeared it's sudden absence wouldn't cause the rocket to leap from it's launch pad.
So too ... if you can keep center of mass aligned with center of rotation when removing a sub-mass, a rotating object won't leap in any direction either.
In fact, that's why there is a LeBlanc balancer mounted to every washing machine drum, to give the drum a balance disparity range it can instantly and dynamically compensate for.
Consider how stupid it would be to build rotating space habitats without dynamic balancing, you'd never be able to get everyone together in one place when any change to mass/rotation alignment could cause your course to change.

Any math/diagrams I could ever share would have to show the centrifugal force acting upon the co-rotating fluid to cancel out the imbalance such that the sub-mass flies off and the center of mass for the system (wheel and droplet) moves accordingly, which is perfectly accurate given that it's not a closed system ... but oh how you'd howl at that.

No, I'm just going to focus on power to weight and see if I can amplify my results enough to make them obvious to everyone.
Thanks though :)
salieri said @ 10:35pm GMT on 15th Jun [Score:1 Classy Pr0n]
Your complicated thought experiment seems designed more to confuse than to clarify (as many of your explanations have been), and you drawing a distinction between letting go and being thrown is a red herring where you're trying to draw some distinction that no one else sees (suggesting you are in fact misinterpreting your own system, not everyone else). I'll tell you what -- I am an expert trained in math and physics (2 masters degrees and about 6 months from finishing my PhD), so if you can provide a detailed schematic of your contraption, one that you yourself generate so you know it's got all the key components and nothing has been missed, I'll do the math for you.
-_- said @ 6:59am GMT on 17th Jun
-_- said @ 1:41am on 16th Jun - reply
Thank you, I'll get that to you soonish.
:)
-_- said @ 3:45am on 16th Jun - reply
on second thought, the only pertinent part is this is simply a LeBlanc Balancer with a controlled perimeter leak.
And... I want to make this is straightforward for you as possible anyway.
So basically a wheel containing some water that releases a droplet every time it reaches a given point in its rotation

I'm using a horizontal wheel of 14" diameter
1.75" thick
"construction paper" thick walls
two perimeter valves mounted 180 degrees apart
valve apertures approximately 1/8" diameter
valve assembly protrudes internally 1/4"
period of valve open time the same 22.5 degrees of rotation each rotation
rotation speed 1500rpm
water volume .2 gallons
water and wheel co-rotating before valves begin operation
Feel free to include a counter rotating twin mounted to the same base if it is helpful


Feel free to adjust values for simplicity if you want to convert to metric, the point isn't my demonstration units/test bed, the point is the thesis being tested.
Main thing I'm concerned about here is that this be constructed in a rotating system, the action of water after it escapes through the valve is of little concern to me other than how it relates to the center of mass for the wheel/escaped water system, but the action of the water inside the rotating system is highly important.
Let me know if you need anything else

Thanks again :)
salieri said @ 12:11am GMT on 20th Jun
The details you've left out of this description are fairly important to doing the calculations, and in fact to understanding the operation of your rig as a whole. Where are the wheels located on the beam? How is the beam attached to the ceiling? How are you opening the valves to release the water? In the video you've posted the machine is pretty loud, suggesting a large amount of force imparted to the wheels while opening the valves, leading to a vibration that is more than likely the cause of the beam rotation. All of these details matter when conducting an experiment, and they all affect the eventual performance of the machine.
-_- said @ 12:12am GMT on 21st Jun
If you can't do the math for the simple/integral part, the thesis being tested via my non-ideal mechanism, then adding in all those other factors isn't going to make it any easier for you or clearer for others. Let's not hide in complexity what can be tested simply.
While you work on that I'll focus on power-to-weight, reducing vibration, a balance beam test, and a swing pendulum test. Thank you :)
-_- said @ 1:22am GMT on 4th Jul
At this point either you forgot or you found that I'm right and you're trying to figure out what's going on.
donnie said @ 10:42pm GMT on 13th Jun
It won't. Like I've been trying to tell you - the source of motion in your apparatus is plain to read for anyone with a proper understanding of Physics, and it's nothing so spectacular as you would claim. Any physicist, I guarantee you, will watch your video and say the exact same things : the motion comes from friction in the system. When you put the thing in free space, or otherwise improve your experimental controls the effect will disappear and your drive won't do anything at all.

I don't think you appreciate at all how spectacularly well-understood, correct, and perfectly predictive the laws of classical physics are when you apply them to completely classical systems (like your "drive"). There is neither mystery nor magic going on here, and there is certainly no reactionless work being done.
kylemcbitch said @ 12:24am GMT on 13th Jun
"This will get you to Mars in a matter of weeks instead of months."

Oh yeah?

Show me that calculation, please?
sanepride said @ 12:29am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
That's right, go ahead and taunt the potential mad scientist.
You know how that usually turns out.
Ankylosaur said @ 2:57am GMT on 13th Jun
They down-modded Einstein!
-_- said @ 2:54am GMT on 13th Jun
"Harold (Sonny) White, the leader of the research group at Eaglework, predicts that a crewed mission to Mars inside a 2 MegaWatt nuclear electric propulsion spacecraft, powered by an EM Drive with a thrust/power input of 0.4 Newton/kW, could get to Mars in a mind-boggling 70 days." from here
Though there are other sources as well.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 2:58am GMT on 13th Jun
And that is in no way what you are demonstrating, is it? Can I see the math that tells me your device is capable of this?

Further more, based on what is coming the claim that the bar shouldn't be moving? Whatever is in the bag is clearly vibrating the bar. That alone will cause the motion we are seeing.
-_- said @ 3:51am GMT on 13th Jun
You're grasping at straws now and you seem angry, maybe you should take some time and sleep on it. This isn't an attack on anyone or anything.
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 4:30am GMT on 13th Jun
I am not attacking you, sir. I am saying straight up what you just linked has about as much to do with your demonstration as an atomic bomb compared to fire cracker.

They are both dealing with physics, but not the same physics.

If I hung a beam from a rope and put my girlfriend's vibrator on full blast and tied it to the rod it will also begin to move like this. From what basis are they getting the idea this shouldn't be happening?

That bar does not look like any sort of torsional pendulum I have seen?
-_- said @ 10:26pm GMT on 13th Jun
There is a way you could orient your vibrator such that it would induce rotation and ways in which you could mount it such that it does not.
It would have little to do with the vibration aspect and mostly to do with the direction of your vibrators motor spin.
Both my motors and my wheels are perpendicular to the plane of the pendulums rotation.
It does not move until we add water to the system, otherwise it simply vibrates in place.
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 10:51pm GMT on 13th Jun
I see where the confusion was coming from, when you compared this to the EmDrive and coupled with the claim it should not be moving, I assumed you were trying to show thrust. Thus, you'd want a torsional pendulum so that you could record the amount of thrust generated. Now that I see it's not what you're going for, and instead a simple balance bar...

I have to now ask even harder: why did the reporter state that the bar should not move? Obviously once overbalanced as such you'd start getting motion. I am not sure if that is the reporters fault or someone who poorly explained what it was?
Dienes said @ 3:04pm GMT on 13th Jun
Well that's a really patronizing way to react to criticism.
Ankylosaur said @ 3:15pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
Yes, he should internalize his reaction and rise above it all.
Dienes said @ 7:06pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
I'm just saying that the exchange of:
This doesn't seem to support the exceptional claims you are making, can you share more information/math/evidence?
"You're grasping at straws now and you seem angry, maybe you should take some time and sleep on it."

Isn't the reaction of a scientist that has data to back up their claims.

Sure happens a lot in pseudoscience, though!
-_- said @ 10:34pm GMT on 13th Jun
Simple vibration won't move a suspended beam past the center of mass of the vibratory unit, I believe that to be something Kyle understands and that he was "grasping at straws" to support his thesis that my device does not work.
I'm not a scientist, just a guy building machines, I don't need to pretend I'm someone I'm not in order to get this accepted, I just need to increase the power to weight ratio.
It's my life, my money, my time.
Dienes said @ 11:55pm GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Good]
An unbalanced vibrator would absolutely move a suspended beam, though.

You want your device to be accepted. That requires evidence. Kyle is pointing out that the evidence you've provided so far is either inaccurate or insufficient to back up your (sometimes grandiose) claims. That is a call for more evidence. Which you are refusing to give and instead retreat to "You're just mad! I'm just building machines! Its not on me to prove they actual do what I say they do!"

You aren't looking for acceptance. You're looking for uncritical, unthinking belief.

You can waste all the money, time, and effort you like. I do take umbridge, however, with you going on TV and legitimizing bad science to folks. That hurts people's understanding of the world around them and fuels conspiracy theories.
kylemcbitch said @ 12:09am GMT on 14th Jun
Just to point out for funsies:

My girl's vibrator is a big ol' floppy thing that wobbles about willy nilly when activated. I assume that would be unbalanced.
-_- said @ 2:50am GMT on 14th Jun
An unbalanced vibrator rotating parallel to the axis of the beam, yes.
My motorized version has no rotations parallel to the axis of the beam.

Kyle has pointed out that he considers my evidence inaccurate.
I am well aware that my evidence is insufficient, this is not the end of this project.
I am not refusing to share anything I have, nor am I refusing to provide more evidence, but things take time.
It is entirely up to me to prove that this experiment has the results I've shared.

I'm not looking for acceptance, your opinion of me is irrelevant, but straightening out a simple conflation in the way physics is taught in order to explore the potential of something useful which has gone unnoticed thus far, that is important.

I understand the back story to your umbridge and suggest it might be resolved by performing said experiment yourself. Perhaps something like this ... though I recommend orienting the wheel vertically if you can, such as I have in the motorized version.
donnie said @ 10:21am GMT on 14th Jun
Lets be clear - there is nothing wrong with classical Physics.

It's pretty audacious for a guy who can't even write a single equation - who is illiterate in the language of Physics - to suggest that there is some error in its knowledge or teachings. How could you possibly know whether or not there was a problem with Physics or whether something was missing from it? You can't even speak the basics of the language.

You somehow seem to think that you can have a valid opinion without having to do the hard work of studying and understanding the work that came before you. You cannot, and it is grossly insulting to those of us who have busted our asses learning this stuff for real. You speak as though you were somehow born with all the knowledge of Physics already built-in to your brain like some divine gift of genius. You don't - nobody does, and you sound like a moron when you try to use "sciencey" words in ways that clearly betray your lack of understanding. Like a precocious child that uses big words in the wrong way, except it isn't cute any longer when you're old enough to be a tenured professor.
C18H27NO3 said @ 4:10pm GMT on 14th Jun
I feel like you just described the american conservative GOP. Education, specialization, and experience are irrelevant. You can decide upon complex, intricate concepts with just empirical knowledge, a bit of facts and peripheral knowledge sprinkled in.
b said @ 1:25am GMT on 15th Jun
Dude, a good scientist would honestly accept criticism and feedback and apply some critical thinking to what he's being told by people with more knowledge.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge any of the points offered by your naysayers speaks volumes about you and the device you think you are building.
-_- said @ 1:49am GMT on 15th Jun
I'm not dismissing anything without the application of critical thinking, but thank you.
kylemcbitch said @ 6:52am GMT on 13th Jun
Bob Denver said @ 8:26am GMT on 13th Jun
I'd love to see his take on the mercury ion drive. It too has minuscule levels of thrust but it actually works in space. I'll wait for NASA to weigh in on that.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 8:34am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
Yes, and with an ion thruster for 1–7 kW of energy you can get 25–250 millinewtons of thrust. Would you care to see how much more efficient that is in comparison?

250 millinewtons: 250000 micronewtons. (at 7 kW)

EmDrive? 80 micronewtons. for 1 kW. If we scaled that to match... 560 micronewtons at 7 kW.

And that presumes it works as stated, which we know it doesn't. Nearly every peer reviewed test that found trust at all has been redacted once they found other explanations, for example: the thermal expansion of the heat sink, which in space would no produce any effective thrust.
Bob Denver said @ 8:51am GMT on 13th Jun
You know more about it than I do. I'd still prefer a denial of effectiveness that didn't have video memes included.
Dienes said @ 1:07am GMT on 14th Jun
I'd still prefer proof of effectiveness. Memes or no memes, at least Kyle is backing up his arguments with actual facts and numbers.
apomorph said @ 1:25am GMT on 13th Jun
It's...it's just not a sealed container.
-_- said @ 2:48am GMT on 13th Jun
how so?
It's a box wrapped in plastic inside a plastic bag that is tied shut.
apomorph said @ 11:06am GMT on 13th Jun [Score:2]
It's not "sealed" i.e. isolated in the way that you are treating it from a physics perspective. You've slapped a box on something that you already shoved down a hill and then are expecting people to be shocked that it keeps rolling.
backSLIDER said @ 5:55am GMT on 13th Jun
You really need acceleration to show force being applied. This is just it shaking around a bit... I'm unimpressed 2/10.
kylemcbitch said @ 5:58am GMT on 13th Jun
I am even less impressed than that, as if this were a functional torsional pendulum it should have been oscillating from the word go. It appears to me that what is causing the motion is a vibration from the machine itself.
backSLIDER said @ 7:55pm GMT on 14th Jun
And why is he using a torsional pendulum? How much force does it take to get to the point his machine stops turning and starts returning? All he would need for that is a fish weight scale and a stop watch. Then he could have some solid numbers. Then he can do it a number of t8mes and get an average and a standard deviation. These are simple things that can be documented and repeated.
-_- said @ 11:29pm GMT on 26th Jul
When a rotating mass releases a sub-mass there are two simultaneous action/reaction systems that occur.
1) action: sub-mass escapes rotating mass.
....reaction: rotating mass loses momentum "stolen" by sub-mass.

2) action: change of center of mass orientation to center of rotation.
....reaction: moment of axial acceleration on vector perpendicular to line from axis to new center of mass.

This is to say .. the wheel does not "kick" in the opposite direction because of the release of the sub-mass, it does so because of the change in center mass.

To prove this assertion one need only build a self balancing wheel capable of releasing sub-masses in a controlled manner.

That's all I did, just a proof that the two action/reaction chains can be separated, that the center of mass can be kept from moving from the center of rotation when releasing a sub-mass from the rotating mass.
It's why I put "reactionless" in quotes ... the third law of motion is inescapable, such as with the above where the 100% equal and opposite reaction to releasing a sub-mass is the 100% equal loss of momentum by the rotating mass.
IMBALANCE is what causes the wheel to experience linear acceleration of its axis, and imbalance can be easily prevented.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR